网络服务提供者侵权问题探析—蔡继明与百度公司侵权纠纷案的案例分析报告
发布时间：2018-11-19 18:47
【摘要】：本文以蔡继明与百度公司的侵权纠纷案为对象,对网络服务提供者以其供应的服务为主要方式对他人的侵权行为而构成的侵权问题进行研究。根据《侵权责任法》的相关条例我们能够了解到,网络服务提供者以其供应的服务为主要方式对他人侵权行为而构成的侵权的过错中包含两个部分。分别是网络服务提供者在被侵权人投诉之前“知道”侵权事实；另一部分是网络服务提供者接到被侵权人的通知后知道客观侵权情况。在网络服务提供者以其供应的服务为主要手段对他人的侵权行为中,明晰网络服务提供者的概念、“知道”是否包含应知以及通知的认定标准意义重大。在学界,对于网络服务提供者的概念、“知道”中是否包含应知争论不休。作为本文研究的主体,必须明确网络服务提供者的根本属性。应在有关技术的支持下进行更为精细的区分。国内立法理论界及实践领域关于其内涵的探索始终未建立起一致性的意见,之所以存在分歧主要焦点集中于未掌握网络服务提供者同网络内容提供者间的明确界限,虽然互联网业界内技术标准呈现出多样化,但如果想得到对两者从理论角度进行划分,必须从这一原则出发：网络服务提供者并非片面限制于技术服务供应方面,内容服务的供应者同样包含在其范围之中。网络服务提供者的“知道”中应当包含应知,对于网络服务提供者“知道”与其不负审查义务的逻辑冲突,可以在承认网络服务提供者不负审查责任的过程中,主张某一特殊环境下网络服务提供者应对部分审查责任进行承担的角度来予以处理。信息量充足是通知适格的根本,使得网络服务提供者在对被侵权方的基本信息及联系方式的确认过程中有证可循,特别是侵权嫌疑的信息位置确定,最好是可对被侵权人精准的URL地址进行显示,假如此类地址难以寻获,就应该保证更为充足的信息量,便于网络服务提供者在相关技术的支持下进行相关信息的自主寻获。从原则上来讲,应使用书面通知形式,然而并非片面的指“白纸黑字”的文字形式,尤其是市场经济相对繁荣、通讯方式数字化信息化水平较高的领域,通过互联网技术进行传播的,被认定为在法律效力上同“白纸黑字”的传统书面形式是一致的,比如E-mail等。对于“及时”的理解,不能片面的理解为一个准确的时间,而是从对权益产生侵害的各个原因入手进行全面权衡。
[Abstract]:This paper takes the dispute between Cai Jiming and Baidu Company as the object to study the infringement of other people by the service provided by the network service provider. According to the relevant regulations of the Tort liability Act, we can understand that the fault of network service provider who torts others mainly by the service provided by network service consists of two parts. The other part is that the network service provider knows the fact of infringement before the aggrieved party complains; the other part is that the network service provider knows the objective infringement after receiving the notice of the infringer. In the infringement of others by the service provided by the network service provider, it is of great significance to clarify the concept of the network service provider. In academia, the concept of network service provider, "know" contains should be debated. As the main body of this paper, we must make clear the basic attribute of network service provider. A more nuanced distinction should be made with the support of relevant technologies. The domestic legislative theory circle and the practice domain about its connotation exploration has not established the consistent opinion all the time, the reason why there are differences mainly focuses on not grasping the clear boundary between the network service provider and the network content provider. Although technical standards in the Internet industry are diversified, if the two are to be divided from a theoretical point of view, it must be based on this principle: network service providers are not unilaterally restricted to the provision of technology services. Providers of content services are also included in their scope. The "know" of a network service provider should include knowledge, and in the process of acknowledging that the network service provider is not responsible for censorship, the logical conflict between "knowing" and its non-censoring obligation may be recognized by the network service provider. In a special environment, network service providers should be responsible for part of the review of the point of view to deal with. The sufficient amount of information is the basis of notification, which makes the network service provider have evidence to follow in the process of confirming the basic information and contact information of the infringed party, especially the information location of the suspected infringement. It is best to display the exact URL address of the infringer. If this kind of address is difficult to find, it should ensure more sufficient information, so that the network service provider can find the relevant information independently with the support of relevant technology. In principle, a written notice should be used, but it is not a one-sided reference to the written form of "black and white", especially in areas where the market economy is relatively prosperous and the level of digitization of communications is relatively high. Spread through Internet technology, it is considered that the legal effect is consistent with the traditional written form of "black and white", such as E-mail. For the understanding of "timely", we can not one-sidedly understand it as an accurate time, but from the various causes of infringement of rights and interests to conduct a comprehensive balance.
【学位授予单位】：辽宁大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2016
【分类号】：D923
本文编号：2343112
[Abstract]:This paper takes the dispute between Cai Jiming and Baidu Company as the object to study the infringement of other people by the service provided by the network service provider. According to the relevant regulations of the Tort liability Act, we can understand that the fault of network service provider who torts others mainly by the service provided by network service consists of two parts. The other part is that the network service provider knows the fact of infringement before the aggrieved party complains; the other part is that the network service provider knows the objective infringement after receiving the notice of the infringer. In the infringement of others by the service provided by the network service provider, it is of great significance to clarify the concept of the network service provider. In academia, the concept of network service provider, "know" contains should be debated. As the main body of this paper, we must make clear the basic attribute of network service provider. A more nuanced distinction should be made with the support of relevant technologies. The domestic legislative theory circle and the practice domain about its connotation exploration has not established the consistent opinion all the time, the reason why there are differences mainly focuses on not grasping the clear boundary between the network service provider and the network content provider. Although technical standards in the Internet industry are diversified, if the two are to be divided from a theoretical point of view, it must be based on this principle: network service providers are not unilaterally restricted to the provision of technology services. Providers of content services are also included in their scope. The "know" of a network service provider should include knowledge, and in the process of acknowledging that the network service provider is not responsible for censorship, the logical conflict between "knowing" and its non-censoring obligation may be recognized by the network service provider. In a special environment, network service providers should be responsible for part of the review of the point of view to deal with. The sufficient amount of information is the basis of notification, which makes the network service provider have evidence to follow in the process of confirming the basic information and contact information of the infringed party, especially the information location of the suspected infringement. It is best to display the exact URL address of the infringer. If this kind of address is difficult to find, it should ensure more sufficient information, so that the network service provider can find the relevant information independently with the support of relevant technology. In principle, a written notice should be used, but it is not a one-sided reference to the written form of "black and white", especially in areas where the market economy is relatively prosperous and the level of digitization of communications is relatively high. Spread through Internet technology, it is considered that the legal effect is consistent with the traditional written form of "black and white", such as E-mail. For the understanding of "timely", we can not one-sidedly understand it as an accurate time, but from the various causes of infringement of rights and interests to conduct a comprehensive balance.
【学位授予单位】：辽宁大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2016
【分类号】：D923
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前10条
1 杨立新;;网络媒介平台的性质转变及其提供者的责任承担[J];法治研究;2016年03期
2 顾媛;;网络服务提供者的责任边界[J];长江丛刊;2016年13期
3 宋颂;;专利法上“通知—删除”规则研究——以电子商务中规则滥用为视角[J];电子知识产权;2016年04期
4 彭玉勇;;论网络服务提供者的权利和义务[J];暨南学报(哲学社会科学版);2014年12期
5 杨临萍;姚辉;姜强;;《最高人民法院关于审理利用信息网络侵害人身权益民事纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的规定》的理解与适用[J];法律适用;2014年12期
6 梅夏英;杨晓娜;;网络服务提供者信息安全保障义务的公共性基础[J];烟台大学学报(哲学社会科学版);2014年06期
7 赵克;;网络服务提供者的责任承担[J];人民司法;2014年19期
8 朱新力;魏小雨;;网络服务提供者的规制模式[J];浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版);2014年06期
9 王英;;网络服务提供者责任限制制度的国际观察[J];图书馆建设;2014年06期
10 张凌寒;;网络服务提供者连带责任的反思与重构[J];河北法学;2014年06期
，本文编号：2343112
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/minfalunwen/2343112.html
